AUD exchange rates

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the unit convention, the RBA source, the coverage start (2023 for daily data), and the default aggregation rule, but is silent on auth requirements, return shape, missing-data behavior, and any rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences with zero filler, front-loading the resource and unit convention before the cadence detail. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a four-parameter, annotation-free read tool with no output schema, the description covers source, units, coverage window, and default aggregation. The main remaining gap is output structure and default currency selection, but the schema carries most parameter detail.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents start/end formats and the monthly toggle. The description reinforces the default cadence and adds the 'last value of each month' aggregation rule, which the schema does not state, but adds nothing for the currencies array or the start/end bounds.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource (Australian dollar exchange rates) and adds the decisive interpretation detail — units of foreign currency per A$1 — plus the TWI inclusion. That scope is unmistakably distinct from the rate siblings (get_cash_rate, get_lending_rates) and the macro siblings (get_cpi, get_labour_force).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the description establishes this is the FX-rate tool and notes the default aggregation, but never states when to choose it over rba_series or a generic series fetcher, nor any when-not condition. An agent can infer the fit from the resource, but nothing is explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.